House Preps Health Care Vote
Wolves Could Be Making Return To Illinois
Restaurant Salt Ban Is Purely a New York Thing
Cook County Receives $16 Million To Fight Obesity
Des Plaines Approves 57 Signs For New Casino
You know, in some ways, Chicagoist is awfully glad that there is some resolution now to the foie gras ban, no matter how much we love the suckers. We're so tired of talking about it.
Yesterday, the City Council unanimously approved the ordinance to ban the sale of the fatty duck (or goose! Don't forget the geese!) liver in the city. We're not surprised mind you - this was sort of a gimmie since, as Ald. Joe Moore (49th) pointed out to CBS 2 yesterday, it's not going to cost us a dime and it doesn't take funds away from deserving city services. Just the same, we're with Mayor Daley on this: priorities, people! We're not pro-animal suffering here in the bowels of the Chicagoist offices, but we are pro-Bigger-Fish-To-Fry. But it's over now and perhaps our elected officials can get to working on more important matters. Seriously. We're losing conventions, a much more pressing issue in Chicagoist's eyes.
For those looking for a fix within city limits, you've got until June as the ban doesn't take effect until then. The mayor says that there are only about four restaurants still serving foie gras but we're thinking there's more. Chicagoist wonders, however, if these restaurants - most of which change their menu line-up the way some of us change our underwear - will keep foie gras on their menus all the way through June. If they do, we'll be there. After all, it'll cost as much in gas to haul our cookies out to the suburbs, where it's still legal for restaurants to serve whatever the heck they want, as it would to buy the delicacy itself.
We're willing to bet there was a whole flock of geese resting easily last night.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Oh my God!! Does this mean the end of foie gras fries at Hot Doug's? What a tragedy.
Hot Doug fries are in duck fat.
Does anyone else think this is the stupidest law ever? We have the best new restaurant in the country, Alinea, and plently other top restaurants to boot and we are going to bind the Chefs, by limiting their ingredients. I think this will keep many traditional French chefs from setting up shop in town.
Joe Moore is a moron.
Mark this down. The first and probably the last time I will ever agree with Daley who said in todays NY Times " We have children getting killed by gang leaders and dope dealers. We have real issues here in this city. And we're dealing with foie gras? Lets set some priorities" Of Course Joe- No- Moore would rather deal with foie gras instead of being the independent he claims to be and taking on Daley for creating many of the policies that has created the very same violence he rails against
Ducks and geese at foie gras farms have it good compared to the livestock on your average industrial farm. Are we going to ban that too?
You people are full of shit. Chicagoist has time to post about Lollapalooza and Fat Tire Ale and "Deal or No Deal," even as children die and drugs prevail on our streets. What outrage! How can they even think about beer when schools are falling apart? And you, Matt Walker, how can you eat at Hot Doug's while others starve? How can you waste one more minute reading online blogs when you could be donating your time to building houses for the homeless?
If YOU have time to dally in other interests, then so does Ald. Moore. Clearly, Daley has lots of time to spend NOT focusing on the bigger issues. At least Moore chose an issue he could do somethign about and then WON. And now it's over, so let it go. What have Erin and Spook done about the "real issues" lately?
this is fucking ridiculous.
animals don't have rights. obviously wanton, pointless cruelty is wrong (mostly because it reveals you to be a sadistic fuck), but i don't care if a process that converts an animal into food is unpleasant. i'm sure cows, chicken, and pigs don't enjoy getting slaughtered all that much.
again, this is the sort of shit that is turning people against liberalism and painting all leftists as wishy washy morons. thanks, aldermen.
obviously wanton, pointless cruelty is wrong (mostly because it reveals you to be a sadistic fuck)
What does that mean exactly?? Shouldn't wanton and pointless cruelty be wrong in and of itself? I'm a devoted meat-eater, but I'm an animal lover too. While animals may not have rights, they are still sentient beings who are at least entitled to a certain quality of life before being slaughtered. Personally, I think being force-fed in order to grossly enlarge the size of the liver detracts from that quality of life. Furthermore, I really doubt foie gras is a staple of many Chicagoans' diets anyway, so...
Griffin, the people posting here aren't aldermen being paid $90,000 a year for their city jobs. I'm sure plenty of people here volunteer in their free time to causes they see as important. Joe Moore could have done this. I am completely baffled by his actions on this issue. I can already predict all the letters to the Tribune that will be printed tomorrow. It must be nice to be an elected official. These folks apparently (a) don't get mugged - - security detail, (b) don't ride the CTA, (c) and dont send their kids to Chicago's underperforming public schools.
there's a diff:
Hey, at least Ald. Moore did something besides take bribes and hire his family members to cozy positions around the city.
You say "Moore could have volunteered his free time"? What would that have accomplished? Instead, he made an actual difference. And bear in mind, all he did was promote a ban already standard in California, the UK, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, and other countries. This action cost taxpayers NO money and did not prevent Moore from tackling other issues. So what's your problem? I don`t recall anyone getting this pissed off when our government officials spend time and money lighting Christmas trees or cheering for the Sox.
I work at Hudson Valley Foie Gras. We invited members of the Chicago City Council or their representatives to tour our farm and see the process. No one came. Yet they voted to ban foie gras on the "information" provided by a half-dozen notoriously biased animal advocates. Members of the American Veterinary Medical Association did tour the farm, resulting in the AVMA rejecting the activist claims that foie gras production is detrimental to animal welfare. (http://www.avma.org/convention/news/sunday03.asp,http://www.votedrcharlie.com/ny_vma_+_foie_gras.htm). In every case, the activists or their politician mouthpieces say the same thing. "It really doesn't matter much in Chicago (or other jurisdiction). Won't cost you a thing. Pass it." This is a standard tactic in animal welfare legislation. Pass it somewhere where it doesn't matter. Little support and little opposition. As in the case of the bans on foie gras production in some countries. Who cared? They didn't have any production. It was a give away to a vocal minority. Won't cost you a thing. But the weight of those earlier giveaways adds up after while. Everyone else is banning foie gras. We should too. Eventually destroying three relatively small farms in the US, maybe 300 American jobs in all, in spite of the statements of nationally and internationally-known scientists and veterinarians that foie gras production is acceptable animal agriculture. Good job Assemblyman Moore. Not truth but politics. And by the way, if this is a non-issue for Chicago, why did Moore expend so much time on it? You think he didn't benefit from this? Further, the City Council opened a door you probably should have left closed. The Mayor pointed this out. What's next? And you better believe this type of legislation will continue. Good luck, Chicago.
I don't happen to like foie gras, but I certainly don't think it should be banned. Next, it'll be veal, and then meat generally.
Further, our city's alderpeople should be trying to prevent Richie Daley's friends from causing the O'Hare renovation to cost 750% of what it should.
Marcus Henley -
"Now, let me say what I think—it is not a good use of these animals," Dr. Munschauer said. "They are inducing disease in these animals." Although disease is induced for research purposes, he said, this usage does not greatly benefit society.
Funny how you gleaned only the bits of the report that appear to fully support your livelihood...
A prevailing sentiment was that "this is an issue above and beyond the (two) resolutions," as Dr. Gordon said. A recurrent comment was the need for the AVMA to develop broader policies on animal welfare.
If you're going to reference a report, then you shouldn't misrepresent or selectively quote its content to your own end. You might as well be a lobbyist for the industry, as you're no better than the "half-dozen notoriously biased animal advocates" you rail against...
MikeH,
I did not quote from the report at all. You did the selective quoting you accuse me of. You are not on the City Council are you? I gave the URL for everyone to see. The AVMA conclusions and the resulting vote are clear.
Especially you quote Dr. Munschauer selectively. The previous paragraph to the one you quote reports: Dr. Munschauer visited a New York farm at the request of "both sides" and was conflicted by what he saw. "I didn't see exploding esophaguses ... and it didn't seem like the birds were distressed," he said. He judged the facility to be better than most places where broilers are raised. The birds were obese toward the end of the three weeks but still able to walk. They didn't swim or preen, and they were dirty but not more than other birds. "For the most part, they appear to be well-cared-for," he said. "That's what I saw."
I have a letter from Dr. Munschauer addressed to me dated May 17th, 2005, after his visit. It says:
Dear Marcus,
Thank-you for taking so much time this past Friday to give me an overview of your operation and to give me a much clearer understanding of foie gras production.
My impression was that the birds are handled respectfully and humanely. For me this is the essence of what animals must have in every situation. I congratulate you on your sensitivity to the issues associated with your industry and, to my eye, success in addressing them.
Most sincerely,
Thomas L. Munschauer, D.V.M.
That is the general response of most unbiased and honest people who visit our farm. Even though some of them are not fans of animal agriculture. Sadly, no one in Chicago came to see us before they made up their minds.
Watch out! Next they'll try to ban SMOKING!!!
So, the City of Chicago can't get a "real" smoking ban passed to protect people's health/lives, but banning foie gras to spare ducks and geese is a unanimous slam dunk? Priorities, indeed!
"Next, it'll be veal ..."
God, I hope so.
I find it odd how some people claim there are much more pressing issues than the banning of foie gras but do not stop to think that there may be more pressing issues than the right to consume foie gras.
word "Steven H", can you believe that weak smoking ban compared to this! And Hell Yea "Some asshole".
Its "causes" like this that caused me to stop calling myself "liberal"
and I'm so tired of Lake Front Liberal politicians like, David -Either- Orr, who stands for nothing except crappy elections, Joe No-More who has voted for every one of Daley's budgets, so they needs to stop calling himself independent. They are about as independent as Jane Scakowsky who also calls her self an independent and claims her husband is only going to jail because he spent every waking moment fighting for the "little Guy" and not ripping off his organization( he beat that charge) of course this doesn't include his hourly wage paid for reelecting and spinning King Richard Daley. Sorry for the degression. And does that make any sense Griff that we shouldn't get pissed when they spend our time doing nothing( yes earning 90,000 dollars a year including staff budgets for a part time job, most of it done by their staff? Joe More should be standing on the corner of the Morris El stopping crack sales in his ward.
And sorry, but I enjoy foie gras from time to time